Amercian arrested for Child Porn by Canadian customs who found manga on his computer.

[mythicdawn12]

The point is you CAN be jailed for that in Canada where he was arrested. It's happend. It's gone all the way to our Supreme Court and been upheld. You can have whatever opinion you want, but you are factually incorrect when it comes to Canadian law.

Now you can say all you want that you don't like the law, but the Canadian public as a whole seems to disagree as no one is pushing for that change.

Oh, and you'd be hard pressed to find many Canadians who are anti-seatbelt laws.

Here's the SC decision on cartoon images and other completely fictional works like written stories:

Interpreting "person" in accordance with Parliament's purpose of criminalizing possession of material that poses a reasoned risk of harm to children, it seems that it should include visual works of the imagination as well as depictions of actual people. Notwithstanding the fact that 'person' in the charging section and in s. 163.1(1)(b) refers to a flesh-and-blood person, I conclude that "person" in s. 163.1(1)(a) includes both actual and imaginary human beings.
?Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sharpe, Paragraph 38

1. I know that you can be jailed in Canada for it. I made the point that one shouldn't be.
2. Once again, I do not care if the majority does not like something. The majority still thinks drugs, gay marriage, and abortion should be illegal. Back in the day, the majority believed it was ok to keep slaves.
Just because the majority or even if "society" doesn't like it, doesn't mean it should be legal. Law SHOULD be based on what's right (I know right can be subjective. It's just the easiest way of saying what is correct, what doesn't actually harm anyone), rather than what's likeable or not. So even though I would be hard-pressed to find Canadians that don't like the seatbelt laws, I do not care. There still shouldn't be laws in place forcing you to do something that is only protecting yourself. I'm not forced to walk around with a helmet, but some soccer moms would love to force all of society to be safe and do that. Yeah, there are people that crazy.
And while we're at it, can we stop talking about just Canada and widen our scope to law and morality and ethics in general? I'm not informed about Canadian law, but I do believe that law should be uniform. That is, don't mess with someone else's day. If you do, get punished. Otherwise, do what you will.
"Not messing with someone else's day" takes on a lot.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

We aren't arguing that someone being interested in young children is healthy or typical, rather we are saying we don't think a few icky drawings are worth sending someone to jail and blighting their life with a child porn charge over it. Denying them lolicon won't make them any less attracted to children. When there are only a limited number of jail cells around, leave them free for the real predators: those who molest real living children, to be stored in.

Nope, arrest them too. Having Lolicon on your person is enough to bring suspicion of having such attractions. Its well within societies rights, if you're breaking the law, to incarcerate you, hell, it might even be good for him, maybe just maybe he might get some help. I hear that occasionally sex offenders don't immediately become recidivists upon release so maybe our American programmer will get some help seeing the error of his attractions while he's behind bars. As far as blighting their life with a child porn charge, probably something he should have thought of before possessing images that could even be remotely confused with child porn.

Not that I believe that. I don't think for one min that Canadian authorities would level that charge over something harmless like ramna or whatever. I could care less about this guys blighting of his life... good for society to know he has such attractions, that way he can be kept separate from positions in life that would give him access to children.

I smell a troll. Or a moral crusader. Same thing really. Yes. Child pornography is a bad thing. Yes people who abuse children should be locked up. People who have had fantasies of it but haven't committed the act or even had the temptation to do it? Not really, no.

I had a rape fantasy once. Should I go and hand myself in at a police station?

Not troll, not crusader.

I don't care what you do in your head, but if you were caught with child porn, I'd want you to go to jail for it, and I'd hope the problems in your head could be worked out while youre in there. In addition, I'd want you to be registered as a sex offender so that you couldnt get a job working at the school my children go to, just in case those issues in your head didnt get worked out while you were incarcerated.

 

[Isaac The Grape]

So what constitutes Child Porn in a Manga then? I mean, just being "underage" doesnt really count, and as far as im concerned, Manga do not contain Porn. Well Ecchi perhaps (accidental boobgrab, pantyshots etc) but thats about it and even those dont really contain children

I'd wish People would start seeing the difference between Hentai (Drawn Porn) and Manga (Drawn but not Porn) already. Else you just mention you read Manga to anyone and they think you are into some sick perversion or whatever.

Wow, Negima. That has everything you just mentioned happening to girls under 16. And it is one of the most popular serials ever.

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

We aren't arguing that someone being interested in young children is healthy or typical, rather we are saying we don't think a few icky drawings are worth sending someone to jail and blighting their life with a child porn charge over it. Denying them lolicon won't make them any less attracted to children. When there are only a limited number of jail cells around, leave them free for the real predators: those who molest real living children, to be stored in.

Nope, arrest them too. Having Lolicon on your person is enough to bring suspicion of having such attractions. Its well within societies rights, if you're breaking the law, to incarcerate you, hell, it might even be good for him, maybe just maybe he might get some help. I hear that occasionally sex offenders don't immediately become recidivists upon release so maybe our American programmer will get some help seeing the error of his attractions while he's behind bars. As far as blighting their life with a child porn charge, probably something he should have thought of before possessing images that could even be remotely confused with child porn.

Not that I believe that. I don't think for one min that Canadian authorities would level that charge over something harmless like ramna or whatever. I could care less about this guys blighting of his life... good for society to know he has such attractions, that way he can be kept separate from positions in life that would give him access to children.

I smell a troll. Or a moral crusader. Same thing really. Yes. Child pornography is a bad thing. Yes people who abuse children should be locked up. People who have had fantasies of it but haven't committed the act or even had the temptation to do it? Not really, no.

I had a rape fantasy once. Should I go and hand myself in at a police station?

Not troll, not crusader.

I don't care what you do in your head, but if you were caught with child porn, I'd want you to go to jail for it, and I'd hope the problems in your head could be worked out while youre in there. In addition, I'd want you to be registered as a sex offender so that you couldnt get a job working at the school my children go to, just in case those issues in your head didnt get worked out while you were incarcerated.

That's the thing. We don't know what he had. And even if it was so called "child porn" it's ink on paper. Entirely fictional children. His attraction could extend to that. If he has no intention of harming a child and the thought hasn't even occured to him, should he be given the same sentence as someone that sexually assaulted and murdered a living breathing flesh and blood child?

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

We aren't arguing that someone being interested in young children is healthy or typical, rather we are saying we don't think a few icky drawings are worth sending someone to jail and blighting their life with a child porn charge over it. Denying them lolicon won't make them any less attracted to children. When there are only a limited number of jail cells around, leave them free for the real predators: those who molest real living children, to be stored in.

Nope, arrest them too. Having Lolicon on your person is enough to bring suspicion of having such attractions. Its well within societies rights, if you're breaking the law, to incarcerate you, hell, it might even be good for him, maybe just maybe he might get some help. I hear that occasionally sex offenders don't immediately become recidivists upon release so maybe our American programmer will get some help seeing the error of his attractions while he's behind bars. As far as blighting their life with a child porn charge, probably something he should have thought of before possessing images that could even be remotely confused with child porn.

Not that I believe that. I don't think for one min that Canadian authorities would level that charge over something harmless like ramna or whatever. I could care less about this guys blighting of his life... good for society to know he has such attractions, that way he can be kept separate from positions in life that would give him access to children.

I smell a troll. Or a moral crusader. Same thing really. Yes. Child pornography is a bad thing. Yes people who abuse children should be locked up. People who have had fantasies of it but haven't committed the act or even had the temptation to do it? Not really, no.

I had a rape fantasy once. Should I go and hand myself in at a police station?

Not troll, not crusader.

I don't care what you do in your head, but if you were caught with child porn, I'd want you to go to jail for it, and I'd hope the problems in your head could be worked out while youre in there. In addition, I'd want you to be registered as a sex offender so that you couldnt get a job working at the school my children go to, just in case those issues in your head didnt get worked out while you were incarcerated.

That's the thing. We don't know what he had. And even if it was so called "child porn" it's ink on paper. Entirely fictional children. His attraction could extend to that. If he has no intention of harming a child and the thought hasn't even occured to him, should he be given the same sentence as someone that sexually assaulted and murdered a living breathing flesh and blood child?

Sigh, here we go again.

let me ask before I get started, what point are you trying to make. Last time you quoted me you making same old "thought police" argument, this time to seem to be calling into question if lolicon is child porn.... neither of those two questions really apply.

Canada arrested him, so of course you or I don't know what he had, but IF he broke the law by having child porn, then YES he deserves to go to jail for it.

I'm tired of engaging borderline pedos on whether or not drawn child porn is child porn, so excuse me if I ignore that part of your post.

As far as getting the same sentence, that question smacks of hyperbole and trolling... Of course it wouldn't likely be the same sentence, I think they are talking about a year in jail for breaking that law, (not whats in his head, and putting aside the debate as whether cartoon child porn is child porn (because it doesnt matter what you and I think about it in this case, just what canada thinks about it)) I would hope that the penalty in canada is much much much stiffer for actual child sexual assault.

 

[Doc Theta Sigma]

We aren't arguing that someone being interested in young children is healthy or typical, rather we are saying we don't think a few icky drawings are worth sending someone to jail and blighting their life with a child porn charge over it. Denying them lolicon won't make them any less attracted to children. When there are only a limited number of jail cells around, leave them free for the real predators: those who molest real living children, to be stored in.

Nope, arrest them too. Having Lolicon on your person is enough to bring suspicion of having such attractions. Its well within societies rights, if you're breaking the law, to incarcerate you, hell, it might even be good for him, maybe just maybe he might get some help. I hear that occasionally sex offenders don't immediately become recidivists upon release so maybe our American programmer will get some help seeing the error of his attractions while he's behind bars. As far as blighting their life with a child porn charge, probably something he should have thought of before possessing images that could even be remotely confused with child porn.

Not that I believe that. I don't think for one min that Canadian authorities would level that charge over something harmless like ramna or whatever. I could care less about this guys blighting of his life... good for society to know he has such attractions, that way he can be kept separate from positions in life that would give him access to children.

I smell a troll. Or a moral crusader. Same thing really. Yes. Child pornography is a bad thing. Yes people who abuse children should be locked up. People who have had fantasies of it but haven't committed the act or even had the temptation to do it? Not really, no.

I had a rape fantasy once. Should I go and hand myself in at a police station?

Not troll, not crusader.

I don't care what you do in your head, but if you were caught with child porn, I'd want you to go to jail for it, and I'd hope the problems in your head could be worked out while youre in there. In addition, I'd want you to be registered as a sex offender so that you couldnt get a job working at the school my children go to, just in case those issues in your head didnt get worked out while you were incarcerated.

That's the thing. We don't know what he had. And even if it was so called "child porn" it's ink on paper. Entirely fictional children. His attraction could extend to that. If he has no intention of harming a child and the thought hasn't even occured to him, should he be given the same sentence as someone that sexually assaulted and murdered a living breathing flesh and blood child?

Sigh, here we go again.

let me ask before I get started, what point are you trying to make. Last time you quoted me you making same old "thought police" argument, this time to seem to be calling into question if lolicon is child porn.... neither of those two questions really apply.

Canada arrested him, so of course you or I don't know what he had, but IF he broke the law by having child porn, then YES he deserves to go to jail for it.

I'm tired of engaging borderline pedos on whether or not drawn child porn is child porn, so excuse me if I ignore that part of your post.

As far as getting the same sentence, that question smacks of hyperbole and trolling... Of course it wouldn't likely be the same sentence, I think they are talking about a year in jail for breaking that law, (not whats in his head, and putting aside the debate as whether cartoon child porn is child porn (because it doesnt matter what you and I think about it in this case, just what canada thinks about it)) I would hope that the penalty in canada is much much much stiffer for actual child sexual assault.

You misunderstand me. I'm not a borderline paedophile and quite frankly I'm offended at the accusation. I just think it's utterly stupid that a man has been arrested, can and will have his life destroyed over a bloody drawing. He's not harmed anyone. Or anything. But of course I doubt you'll listen. Quite a few of us apparently have fantasies about having sex with children just because our opinion differs with yours. I'm sick of arguing about it.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Even the US with their free speech laws

Free speech exists the world over, besides in places where the fear of the oversized military will keep you in your place.

My comment here was in response to the press releases from the comic book defence fund, that made out that US freedom of speech laws gave more protection than Canada's. As in he would not have had a problem unless he had gone to Canada. My point was that this idea is false as the US have locked up people for the same reasons as Canada would like to lock up this guy. Hence making the same point as you (I think) that the US freedom of speech law offers no greater protections to this kind of behaviour than anywhere else.

He had no photo's only manga.

It's still child porn, and it sucks to be him when his parents find out and inevitably take a look in the basement he inhabits.

I have to disagree with you and the others with this view here. I find the idea of loli stuff pretty objectionab byle (yes, I am making the assumption he was found with loli stuff, if something like bleach, then this really stinks). But at the same time I don't think it should be treated the same as pictures of real children. For many of the reasons others have already stated here.

Short Version
--------------------------------
Because the below is very long, here is a quick summarization of the reasons why I problems with these laws. If you want to know why I think each of these read the more detailed part further on in the post.

-it is a victimless crime, and victimless crimes are a bit of a hard sell for me, especially if the causal link to the harm they do is sketchy.

-looking at depictions of other crimes taking place is not punished the same as this, if at all.

-just because you find certain material in the possession of a lot of people who have committed a crime, does not mean that everyone who has that material is going to commit that crime, so punishing possession of that material is too inaccurate a way of taking off the streets someone who will commit said crime.

-The definition of 'child' in these laws as being under 18's is problematic.

-An attraction to a drawing may not translate well to an attraction to the real life counterpart, especially with something like manga where some of the drawing features are rather un human looking. So someone with an attraction to a manga representation will find the real life counterpart objectionable.

-Juries are rubbish at deciding if something is child porn as they have no reference and so just assume it is if the accusation is there.

-These kind of laws distract from the fight to stop actual abuse to actual children.



Long Version
--------------------------------

First there not being a real victim. There are other victimless crimes out there, but none that carry the same harsh penalties as this. And those have a lot more evidence showing a causal link between the victimless crime and the potential harm that it causes, like speeding. But the problem with all these laws is that that they punish what you might do rather than what you have done, like pre-crime from the movie Minority Report, but less accurate. I do believe that people should only be punished for harm they have done rather than for harm they might do. You don't know 100% what someone will do until they have done it. I am OK with interceding a little bit earlier where you can tell that the person has a very high probability of carry out a crime, so you can save lives, but it has to be late in the day. Like the bomber just about to construct their suicide vest rather than when they were just looking at some 'bad' websites. Hence I support 'grooming' laws.

Also there is that there is no 100% proven link between consumption of drawings and actual abuse of children. Just because you find lolli owned by someone who has abused a child, does not mean that everyone who looks at lolli will abuse a child. In the same way that just because you find Koran's at lots of suicide bombers houses, does not mean that everyone with a Koran is going to blow themselves up.

I have a problem with the assumption that just because you are viewing a piece of media depicting a crime, that means that you are going to go commit that crime. We know this, as media depicting other crimes is not banned. You can watch depictions of people being murdered, being assaulted, being stolen from, defrauded, etc, all without the same kind of punishments that seeing media depicting the crime of child sexual abuse will get you. What makes the media depicting one crime different from the others?

Now child sexual abuse is one of the most awful crimes, but no worse (to my mind) than murder, yet we are exposed to murder showing media all the time. I of course support punishing to the full extent of the law producers of non-drawn child porn as they have obviously committed the terrible crime of abusing a child to create the media. They are the lowest of the low. But the media is evidence of the crime rather than something that is creating further abuse.

I think the definition of child here is also bad. Depictions of prepubescent?s, fine, as only someone deviant from human norms would find that attractive. But depictions of people over puberty, but still under 18, even normal human beings can find them attractive as they can have most of the features that make over 18's attractive. Attraction does not have an automatic detection system for when people are over 18, it is keyed to certain curves, features etc, that are not present until after puberty. Not many people want to admit this, but it does not make it any less true. The doormen at bar entrances don't always get the age of the people they are admitting 100%, but they don't get the same harsh punishment, that a non-professional who miss estimates the age of a person gets. The problem with drawings and especially manga is that quite young looking faces can be put on very adult bodies. Now if men can be attracted to girls with objectionable faces just because they have an amazing body, can't the same be true of drawings as well. This does not mean I acting on any attractions to some who looks very adult but is under the age of conscent of your country. I think most people have thought someone under 18 was physically attractive at some point, but of course have never acted on it. This is the difference between a normal person and a child abuser. The same way there is a difference between a murderer and someone who loves watching SAW type movies.

Also no seems to get that if you are attracted to something drawn that may well not translate into the real-life thing the drawing is supposed to represent. Manga characters can be very different looking to their real life counterparts, with the crazy hair colours and other features as to almost be an alien life form rather than human. And no, I am not arguing that manga drawings are of non-humans so therefore get an exception, as the attempt is obviously to represent a human. It is just that the representation is so different to real life inspiration, that an attraction to one is not guaranteed to translate into an attraction to the other. Now I base this on what I have seen of manga, I don?t know if lolli stuff is different and a more realistic representation, hence the attraction would translate better.

Finally there is also the problem in these cases, of juries? convicting on rather tame material as they have non concept of what actual child porn looks like. So they tend to take it that if the prosecution say it?s child porn, it must be as they would not know the difference. They have no scale to base their decisions on. I have no idea how to nicely solve this problem. I would not like to be on a jury who has to be educated on what child porn looks like by seeing different examples, yuck

Now you may read through this and think that I don't take the crime of sexual abuse of children and also general abuse of children, very seriously. But you could not be more wrong. I sincerely believe that this focus on the by-products of this awful crime actually take away from stopping actual children being abused in the first place. It's a distraction that makes people thing that more child abusers are being taken of the street when just as much actual abuse to real children is happening, and that is what is sad. The problem is that most of this stuff is being produced in places that have hardly any law to protect children, but is outside the jurisdiction of the places that do have laws to protect children, so they cannot get the actual abusers, just the people who have evidence of the crime taking place.

I apologise for the length of this, but there have been 10 odd pages of this thread and I am almost replying to the what I have read in the thread I started, rather than just to one person.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

I'd agree with you except that in this case it was another country's law. You don't get to go into another country after specifically agreeing to abide by their laws and disregard the laws you feel are silly. I find it very distasteful when my fellow countrymen do that in places like Dubai; certain intimacy laws look funny to us but that doesn't mean we get to ignore them because we don't like them.

Why should laws get the benefit of the doubt if they are from another country? I would assert that all laws, domestic or foreign, should be subject to scrutiny. The location of the law does change the source of its authority, but does not increase the validity of the law on the sole merit of being a law.[footnote]I should also note, as ecchi [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/18.297134-Amercian-arrested-for-Child-Porn-by-Canadian-customs-who-found-manga-on-his-computer?page=5#11771062] featuring under-dressed underaged characters is dubious here in the US, in that a judge could decide that it is obscene or has no artistic value and therefore would count as child pornography regardless of the subect being a fictional character. I don't agree with this law either, as it sets a precedent for censorship of ideas.[/footnote]

To wit:
~ To respect a law just because it is law is appealing to authority, and doesn't make the law right or proper.
~ To respect a law just because that's the way it's been done is appealing to tradition, and doesn't make the law right or proper.
~ To respect a law to evade punishment is appealing to force, and doesn't make the law right or proper.
~ To respect a law on the basis that its intent is right and proper, and that the law correctly effects that intent is what makes a law right and proper.

Incidentally, I'm not saying one should necessarily break laws that they don't personally find right and proper. (To the contrary, laws are usually enforced by big guys with guns and mean judges, and I'd recommend not pissing any of them off.) I'm saying that law is not intrinsically right and proper, and often isn't even tested as such until it is broken. And in a proper civilized nation the big guys and mean judges exercise a degree of rational consideration before cracking out the guns and sending you to the pen.

I'm also saying we, as outside observers cannot assume that Brandon X [http://cbldf.org/about-us/case-files/cbldf-case-files-canada-customs-case/] did wrong or is at fault just because he broke a law. Considering the number of people on this site who are surprised that their notebook computer can be searched when crossing from the US to Canada (what is usually regarded as an open border in which one barely has to declare fruit),[footnote]Note that Canada has only instituted computer searches just because the US has. Normally, they don't. Thanks, America![/footnote] I suspect it didn't even occur to the poor fellow that he'd have to prepare for a laptop search, or that the manga in question would be regarded as contraband. If this is the case, it would be unfortunate if he were to do time for it.

In addition that's like going into someone's house and refusing to remove your shoes at the door, they've got it set up how they like it so what right does he have to protest the law?

Not a worthy analogy, since one is usually not let in if they're not willing to remove their shoes. If he was turned at the gate, or got his computer confiscated for containing suspect media, but was otherwise allowed to proceed, I could see the no-shoes comparison applying.

No, this is more like going to your buddy's house and having him detain you by force and notify the authorities because your prescription medicine is regarded as contraband in his state.

238U.

 

[5mj7R7yf4Dwr3gdZyyu9PeGNwYjlNrjzuh3iTXQG]

It wasn't as much as she had nudes of her kid, it was that she posted them on her website. I will look for the story when I have some down time.

Well, that was only a matter of time. Parents taking nude pictures of their kids (likely oblivious to any sexual inference that others might draw). Parents posting pictures of their kids on Facebook. A + B = uh oh.

Kinda like sexting: Teens playing with new technology + Teens exploring their own raging sexuality = national hysteria.

Of course our nation is completely freaked out that someone somewhere is jacking off to the naked little boy in Superman: The Movie. Ergo, we can never make public any picture of a child that might excite someone in our massive population.

Eventually, we're going to get over this issue, but not in this decade.

238U.

 

[LittlePineWeasel]

snip

Remember kiddies, only you can prevent quote trains.

You misunderstand me. I'm not a borderline paedophile and quite frankly I'm offended at the accusation. I just think it's utterly stupid that a man has been arrested, can and will have his life destroyed over a bloody drawing. He's not harmed anyone. Or anything. But of course I doubt you'll listen. Quite a few of us apparently have fantasies about having sex with children just because our opinion differs with yours. I'm sick of arguing about it.

I didn't misunderstand you at all. First thing you asked was "should a guy be arrested for whats in his head." and I answered no, and that question is irrelevant because this guy was arrested for things that were NOT in his head.

Then you asked "is cartoon kiddie porn still even kiddie porn" and I answered, Yes.

Then I explained that seeing as I had already explained why to a bunch of closet pedos I didn't feel like explaining why to you. At no point did I say you were such a person, I simply explained that those people had previously wore me out on the conversation. If you were offended take it up with yourself.

I think its utterly stupid that a grown man would risk having his life destroyed over some cartoon kiddie porn. I think its utterly stupid to think that society is in the wrong for prohibiting such materials. I think its utterly stupid to expect society to not label someone who exhibits unhealthy attraction to prepubescent children in an effort to keep people who have such defects of the mind/spirit/character away from actual children.

Again you tried to put words into my mouth, I never said anyone who disagrees with me wants to have sex with children. That is only one of the reasons that someone might defend lolicon or other varieties of kiddie porn, other reasons include some misguided uneducated stand on "freedom of speech" or maybe just because this conversation is on the web and people don't have to try to look someone in the eye and keep a straight face while they say "there's nothing wrong with this person over here being turned on by hand drawn kiddie porn... etc etc etc".

 

[AhumbleKnight]

Super Mega Snip!

That was really well said. I agree with everything you have said here and wish that everybody else on this thread would take the time to read it. I doubt that will happen though.

OT: Does anybody know what manga comics this guy had? Are most people assuming that he had loli or what? The news artical clearly said manga so all we know is that it is probably one or more of the comics in this list.
http://cbldf.org/resources/customs/comics-seized-by-canadian-border-officials/

 

[Saelune]

If there are no victims for an activity, then it isn't a crime. End of discussion.

But it is a crime what you believe doesn?t matter he broke Canada?s laws and must be punished. End of discussion.

What if the law's punishment was execution? Its all nice in a legal book and everything.
Cant argue. Its the law!

Yeah, law =/= right.

 

[ph0b0s123]

Super Mega Snip!

That was really well said. I agree with everything you have said here and wish that everybody else on this thread would take the time to read it. I doubt that will happen though.

OT: Does anybody know what manga comics this guy had? Are most people assuming that he had loli or what? The news artical clearly said manga so all we know is that it is probably one or more of the comics in this list.
http://cbldf.org/resources/customs/comics-seized-by-canadian-border-officials/

Thanks for that, it is nice to know someone had the time to wade through it, sorry again. I have added a shorter version for those with less time and attension.

I am sure due to my stance I will get some accusations, as everyone does who takes this stance. Anyone who has a problem with laws 'protecting' children is obviously a closet pedo. But that could not be further from the truth. I like the voluptous which is a very rare feature in the under 18's, so these laws are not something that affect me. But that does not mean I like the trend that has started, or the idea that all manga (of which I am a fan) is somehow kiddie fiddler fodder. That generalisation needs to be stopped now.

 

[Andothul]

Can someone explain to my why his laptop was searched in the first place?

Is this normal for customs to do this?

 

[Aurgelmir]

I read my countrys laws on child porn once, when there was some news about it in the media.

And the problem with all these laws is that they are so freaking vague in describing what is considered child pornography.

But here is where I get so pissed off at these people that gets arrested for posessing manga with characters with their breasts hanging out who happened to be underage (Hell manga has a loot of nude boobs even when its not Hentai, Ranma 1/2 is a good example of this), anywyas what pisses me off is this:

Its a drawn character, the only reason we know the person is under age is because it is written on the page.

Some could argue that the characters LOOK under age, but there are A LOT of real life 18 year old girls which looks like they could be 14, so just "looks to be under age" isn't really good enough now is it?


My countries law also state that picturing children in a sexual situation is not legal. This is a rather vague sentence, since what is a sexual situation? Hell do you need to be naked to be sexual? How many TV shows or movies don't sexualize young girls and boys? (Or characters playing younger people?) Should my country start arresting anyone who watches the Disney Channel now?

I think the laws concerning DRAWN material should be limited to "Drawing of children who is engaging in sexual activity"

Because most nude characters in Manga are just that, nude... they are generally not doing anything sexual... most of the time...


PS: Remind me never to travel with the first few books of Gunsmith Cats... Minnie May would get you arrested on the spot!


EDIT: Ironically I think companies like Viz and Tokyo-Pop print most of their manga in Canada

 

[Scipio1770]

Lol look at the titles of prohibited comics, it's pretty obvious he wasn't reading sailor moon.

http://cbldf.org/resources/customs/comics-seized-by-canadian-border-officials/

and that my friends is what you get for actually carrying around porn magazines like a freakin dinosaur.

 

[AhumbleKnight]

I read my countrys laws on child porn once, when there was some news about it in the media.

And the problem with all these laws is that they are so freaking vague in describing what is considered child pornography.

But here is where I get so pissed off at these people that gets arrested for posessing manga with characters with their breasts hanging out who happened to be underage (Hell manga has a loot of nude boobs even when its not Hentai, Ranma 1/2 is a good example of this), anywyas what pisses me off is this:

Its a drawn character, the only reason we know the person is under age is because it is written on the page.

Some could argue that the characters LOOK under age, but there are A LOT of real life 18 year old girls which looks like they could be 14, so just "looks to be under age" isn't really good enough now is it?


My countries law also state that picturing children in a sexual situation is not legal. This is a rather vague sentence, since what is a sexual situation? Hell do you need to be naked to be sexual? How many TV shows or movies don't sexualize young girls and boys? (Or characters playing younger people?) Should my country start arresting anyone who watches the Disney Channel now?

I think the laws concerning DRAWN material should be limited to "Drawing of children who is engaging in sexual activity"

Because most nude characters in Manga are just that, nude... they are generally not doing anything sexual... most of the time...


PS: Remind me never to travel with the first few books of Gunsmith Cats... Minnie May would get you arrested on the spot!

I can think of a few other manga that could quite easily be put into the child porn category. There is a few pages in a few chapters of Elfin Lied that are begging for ignorant labeling but I doubt anybody here would seriously suggest people being arrested for reading that.

I really think that people should try and keep a clear head and stay rational about this topic. Innocent until proven guilty comes to mind.

 

[Aurgelmir]

I read my countrys laws on child porn once, when there was some news about it in the media.

And the problem with all these laws is that they are so freaking vague in describing what is considered child pornography.

But here is where I get so pissed off at these people that gets arrested for posessing manga with characters with their breasts hanging out who happened to be underage (Hell manga has a loot of nude boobs even when its not Hentai, Ranma 1/2 is a good example of this), anywyas what pisses me off is this:

Its a drawn character, the only reason we know the person is under age is because it is written on the page.

Some could argue that the characters LOOK under age, but there are A LOT of real life 18 year old girls which looks like they could be 14, so just "looks to be under age" isn't really good enough now is it?


My countries law also state that picturing children in a sexual situation is not legal. This is a rather vague sentence, since what is a sexual situation? Hell do you need to be naked to be sexual? How many TV shows or movies don't sexualize young girls and boys? (Or characters playing younger people?) Should my country start arresting anyone who watches the Disney Channel now?

I think the laws concerning DRAWN material should be limited to "Drawing of children who is engaging in sexual activity"

Because most nude characters in Manga are just that, nude... they are generally not doing anything sexual... most of the time...


PS: Remind me never to travel with the first few books of Gunsmith Cats... Minnie May would get you arrested on the spot!

I can think of a few other manga that could quite easily be put into the child porn category. There is a few pages in a few chapters of Elfin Lied that are begging for ignorant labeling but I doubt anybody here would seriously suggest people being arrested for reading that.

I really think that people should try and keep a clear head and stay rational about this topic. Innocent until proven guilty comes to mind.

I guess a good place to start is to look at the context of which the nudity/sexual act is happening.

Also reading what the CBLDF is saying it seems that the Canadian border is not just taking child pronography but anything that looks "bad"... again I'd point out that chances are big that said comics was already printed in Canada

 

[Jonluw]

snip,

In other words, you are advocating putting a person who has never hurt and has no intention to hurt anyone in jail. Putting him in jail merely for the thoughts inside his head. As I've said before: In your fictional dictatorship, that might be okay, but in the civilized world where we other people live, that goes against basic democratic principles.

No, those aren't just other words, they are YOUR words. How about you stick to saying what you're saying and leave saying what I'm saying to me, k thanks, tiger.

What I am saying is that this guy is accused of breaking a child porn law. If he broke it he deserves to go to jail FOR THAT. He's not going to jail for having a though, hes going to jail for breaking a law. Also, if the law that he broke indicates that he has an unhealthy and unacceptable (not just me saying that, society as a whole agrees) attraction to prepubescent girls. Society has every right to try to help him and every right to also label him as such for the protection of societies children.

So allow me to make it more clear for you.

If found guilty of breaking a law he will get jail time, not for whats in his head, but for breaking a law. The law that he broke indicates that he has a problem in his head, and it is well within rights for society to take measures to ensure that he is not placed in a position where the problems in his head could become problems for a real child.

When the person who opposes you in an argument is contesting a law - arguing for the law to be changed - because that law punishes people merely for the thoughts within their head, saying "that's the law" is not a valid defense.

So long as you defend the law that makes drawings illegal, what you are saying is the same as what I've written in my paraphrasing of you up there.

We already have laws to take care of people who hurt children. The law against lolicon is taking care of people who might, perhaps, maybe, conceivably hurt children some time in the future. By your logic, all fictional depictions of murder, bank robbery, speeding cars, genocide, euthanasia and rape should be illegal as well.